Nietzsche, What Is the Difference Between Master

¶ … Nietzsche, what is the difference between master morality and slave morality? Which does he prefer and why?

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's seminal document The Genealogy of Morality attempts to chronicle the history or 'birth' of morality, which for Nietzsche does not originate within the innate human character but as a result of social impositions. In pre-Christian, pagan times, the strong were naturally considered to be the 'better' of the two main classes of people -- the masters and the slaves. "The former had an unquestioning hold over the latter -- they had a feeling of ruling and superiority that was justified by the fact that they were ruling and they were superior. Nietzsche calls this feeling of the superior over the inferior the pathos of distance" (Wallace, "Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morals"). The ruling classes were made up of "noble, the powerful, the superior, and the high-minded" and they deserved to have power over the weaker, low-minded plebeians (Wallace, "Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morals"). Nietzsche regards such dominion as 'natural' as an eagle devouring a helpless lamb.

This is how concepts of 'good' and 'bad' developed: in pagan times, 'good' was associated with strength, and 'bad' was associated with weakness. Gradually, the more numerous herds of lower-class people began to resent their inferior status and began to invert the dominant norms of good and bad (perhaps most succinctly phrased in the Christian notion of the 'first being last and the last being first' during the day of final judgment or the notion that the lion and the lamb should lay down together).

Thus began the generation of 'slave morality,' or the idea perpetuated amongst the lower orders that they were innately better than their superiors by virtue of their weakness. "Good' and 'bad' meanings were inverted: thus, in the slave morality, the concept of 'good' now applied to weakness while the concept of 'bad' now applied to those in power. "In this way, the deprived, poor, sick, and helpless become pious, whereas as the powerful, noble, and rich became impious" (Wallace, "Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morals").

It should be noted that Nietzsche viewed morality as something which has its origins in behavior, not in one's essential orientation. Nietzsche did not believe it was possible to be 'weak' internally but strong in one's position; conversely, he did not believe it was possible to be a submissive person in manner but still able to move mountains. "There is no distinction between strength (or weakness) and the expression of strength (or weakness). As he puts it, '...the doing itself is everything'" (Wallace, "Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morals"). This is one of the dangerous fallacies of the slave's morality, that "that the strong may freely choose to be weak. [But] Nietzsche thinks that strength just is doing strong things; weakness just is doing weak things. So the thought of tempering or taming strength, would just result in one becoming weaker; likewise, beefing up weakness, would just result in one becoming stronger" (Wallace, "Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morals").

Ultimately, the master and slave moralities are always at war: the common 'herd' of slaves always wants to impose their views upon the strong, thus subjecting the strong and making the strong obey their will. "The higher type creates his own values out of strength; the meek and powerless begin with resentment. Coexistence is impossible because the herd seeks to impose its values universally" ("Nietzsche, Slave and Master Morality," Philosophy 302). This directly relates to the philosopher's concept of the 'over-man' who is beyond social morality and who refuses to accept the idea that all people are equal. He is not equal to the common members of the herd and he knows it -- he refuses to obey moral dictates and celebrates his strength ("Nietzsche, Slave and Master Morality," Philosophy 302).